From: | Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Zhang Mingli <zmlpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Lock on ShmemVariableCache fields? |
Date: | 2022-10-31 07:14:54 |
Message-ID: | MEYP282MB16695B0701EA4D7A4471A74AB6379@MEYP282MB1669.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 at 14:15, Zhang Mingli <zmlpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> HI,
>
> On Oct 31, 2022, 10:48 +0800, Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, wrote:
>>
>> I also find a similar code in StartupXLOG(). Why we don't hold the lock
>> on OidGenLock when updating ShmemVariableCache->nextOid and
>> ShmemVariableCache->oidCount?
>>
>> If the lock is unnecessary, I think adding some comments is better.
>>
> As its name BootStrapXLOG, it’s used in BootStrap mode to initialize the template database.
> The process doesn’t speak SQL and the database is not ready.
> There won’t be concurrent access to variables.
>
Thanks for your explanation. I got your mind. So, in theory, we can also update
everything in ShmemVariableCache without a lock?
For example, since SetCommitTsLimit() is only used in BootStrapXLog() and
StartupXLOG(), we can safely remove the code of acquiring/releasing lock?
--
Regrads,
Japin Li.
ChengDu WenWu Information Technology Co.,Ltd.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Smith | 2022-10-31 08:07:37 | Re: Support logical replication of DDLs |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2022-10-31 07:14:16 | Re: Adding doubly linked list type which stores the number of items in the list |